Hancock v. Trammell
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14502
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- In April 2001 Phillip Hancock shot and killed Robert (Bob) Jett and James Lynch at Jett’s home; Hancock admitted the killings but claimed self-defense; convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death.
- At trial the prosecutor elicited evidence that Hancock had a 1982 manslaughter conviction and had asserted self-defense in that earlier case; the state court admitted (and instructed the jury about) that evidence over Hancock’s objections.
- Jury rejected self-defense, convicted of first-degree murder, and found the heinous/atrocious/cruel aggravator; state appeals and post-conviction relief denied by Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA).
- Hancock sought federal habeas relief; the district court denied relief; Hancock appealed to the Tenth Circuit on four certified issues (evidentiary ruling re: prior conviction/self-defense plea; jury instructions/closing argument on self-defense; ineffective assistance for failing to request a manslaughter-while-resisting instruction; cumulative error).
- The Tenth Circuit majority affirmed denial of habeas relief under AEDPA deference, concluding the OCCA’s rulings were not unreasonable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hancock) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admissibility of 1982 manslaughter conviction and self-defense plea | Admission deprived Hancock of due process; OCCA misread the trial court’s basis for admitting evidence (unreasonable factual determination) | OCCA adjudicated claim on merits and its reasoning can be read as factually accurate or as adopting §2609-based admissibility | Denied: Hancock failed to prove OCCA made unreasonable factual findings; OCCA’s decision was a merits adjudication and not unreasonably based on the record; habeas relief barred by AEDPA |
| 2. Jury instructions and prosecutor’s closing on self‑defense (including aggressor/withdrawal/"words alone") | Instructions and related prosecutorial argument were unsupported or misleading and denied due process | Instructions and arguments were supported by disputed evidence; OCCA reasonably applied precedent | Denied: OCCA reasonably applied Supreme Court precedent and factual determinations stand under AEDPA |
| 3. Ineffective assistance for failing to request manslaughter‑while‑resisting instruction | Trial counsel was deficient for omitting the instruction; prejudice would likely have produced manslaughter convictions instead of first‑degree murder | OCCA applied Strickland and reasonably concluded no prejudice — jury already rejected heat‑of‑passion lesser offense; evidence fit heat‑of‑passion as well as resisting‑attempt theory | Denied: Even assuming deficient performance, Hancock failed to show all fair‑minded jurists would find prejudice; OCCA’s Strickland application was reasonable |
| 4. Cumulative error | Combined errors (evidentiary, instructional, counsel) require habeas relief | Cumulative‑error doctrine requires two or more constitutional errors; no such multiplicity here | Denied: No two or more constitutional errors to aggregate; cumulative‑error relief not available |
Key Cases Cited
- Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (2007) (§2254(d) sets preconditions, not entitlement, to habeas relief)
- Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 1 (2010) (federal habeas requires showing of constitutional violation even if §2254(d) threshold met)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)
- Thornburg v. Mullin, 422 F.3d 1113 (10th Cir. 2005) (OCCA’s plain‑error review can amount to merits adjudication of due‑process claim)
- Byrd v. Workman, 645 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2011) (petitioner's burden to show OCCA’s factual determination was unreasonable under §2254(d)(2))
- Littlejohn v. Trammell, 704 F.3d 817 (10th Cir. 2013) (cumulative error doctrine explained)
- Miller‑El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (AEDPA deference does not foreclose meaningful review)
- Duvall v. Reynolds, 139 F.3d 768 (10th Cir. 1998) (due‑process analysis for admission of prior‑bad‑act evidence; probative value vs. prejudice)